Dear Garry,
Thank you for turning me onto the 1 minute chelation--about 1/3 of my practice is using this now. . . .One man has "end stage heart disease" with 100% occlusion of all his major coronary vessels (chest pain at rest). 5 times at Mayo with new techniques, costing over $10,000 a trip had yielded nothing. I have him on 1 minute chelation 2 or 3 times a week, Ozone saunas 2 times a week and Wobenzym with enzymes at meals and in one month' time he is fishing, hiking, and doing what he pleases without chest pain. He really appreciates you a lot.
God's blessings---

My Thoughts on potential Insurance reimbursement for The 1-5 minute slow IV push of Calcium EDTA- by Garry F. Gordon, MD,DO,MD(H)

To the reader -

If you do not read all this - Briefly the patient really needs high enough numbers on the provocative urine test to fit the diagnostic criteria acceptable to the local insurance carrier and within the guidelines of the region in which the doctor practices. Generally, unless you live in a toxic area like LOVE CANAL or other toxic sites, this should not happen frequently because the numbers for reimbursement are artificially set far too high due to lead industry lobbying, so that the lead industry does not face the same fate that the Tobacco industry is going though. This is due to the fact that there is not enough money in the system to detoxify all that would benefit from lowering lead and other heavy metals, because that provably is ALL OF US!

I believe that every Doctor who is now offering CALCIUM EDTA orally and by injection to their patients should have FAR less problems obtaining malpractice insurance because the Doctor is now following the package insert for using CALCIUM EDTA, and is really not involved in off label indications. However, the only fight is who has HIGH enough lead values to get health insurance reimbursement for their care, since we really all are excessively lead burdened, who is going to qualify as sufficiently lead toxic that the insurance will pay. In my view, this is a political and not a scientific problem, I can prove there is NO safe level, but they can prove that we all somehow muddle through life, so in THEIR book, you should be in a coma to qualify.

These enlightened doctors today using CALCIUM EDTA are not engaging in an "experimental therapy" as those still using Disodium EDTA are, because they have clearly chosen to leave behind the "roto-rooter ' and or plaque reversal concept regarding the use of DISODIUM EDTA in cardiovascular disease. They instead acknowledge to their patients that the ONLY known provable benefit from using Calcium EDTA orally or by injection, and there should be no argument about this, is that Calcium EDTA is being recommended by them to their patient to lower the level of toxic metals in the patient. WE are finally learning how MANY substantial benefits that our patients can receive from this simple process, and increased production of NITRIC OXIDE by the body is only one of the reasons we see our patients improve so much as we detoxify them.

Now, we KNOW that the LEAD and other heavy metal industries have kept the level of lead that you MUST have to be considered lead toxic artificially high, since they can not afford to admit that there is NO safe level of lead.

What about charging for the office visits? Could you also give EDTA at that office visit as an uncovered service and charge from $40 to 100 for it, what if you chose to give it FREE and not bill for it at all, settling for just the Office visit fee?

It seems to me that if you have a patient that has any health problem or symptoms enough that warrant YOUR seeing them, clearly you can and must charge for an office visit, and often the patients underlying diagnosis of perhaps heart disease, ADD or autism or cancer or asthma or arthritis will permit insurance reimbursement for their visit.

The fact that you choose to provide them free of charge an INDICATED and legal medical service, such as an IV push of CALCIUM EDTA should not in my opinion put such a doctor in any legal jeopardy.

In fact, we have many doctors CHOOSING to bill insurance for heavy metal toxicity, which may clearly be warranted in some cases depending on the numbers seen in the provocative test etc. Since blood lead is now completely discredited for making ANY diagnosis regarding heavy metal body burden, because it only reflects recent exposure and since Everyone's bones average 1000 times more lead than seen in bones tested as recently as 500 years ago, the issue regarding who has lead toxicity warranting treatment is an individual matter, between the doctor and the patient.

Some doctors may choose to take the aggressive posture of calling the results of the provocative urine heavy metal test with ANY toxic metal seen, to provide "lab evidence of increased body burden of lead " or other heavy metal that may be seen.

Then, even if the patient is entirely asymptomatic, they are entitled to TREAT the patient to lower the overall body burden of toxic metal, as long as there is a fully informed and consenting patient and excessive promises are not being made.

The issue becomes however, WHEN is this parenteral administration of Calcium EDTA itself REIMBURSABLE by insurance, and who sets that standard. I think it is best in most cases to NOT try for reimbursement and consider heavy metal detoxification as elective as plastic surgery generally is.

I believe that the Doctors showing up at ICIM and taking their written exam in Ann Arbor in September to finally become fully qualified as experts in this field and obtain board certification in metal toxicology , should, like a plastic surgeon, be allowed to make the call on who they treat, and whom they do not treat, and which should be entitled to 3rd party reimbursement, but with the lead industry able to hire doctors to defend THEIR interest, we know that which patients should get reimbursed by insurance will lead to a potential significant disagreement, and this could be subject to abuse by some doctors feeling perhaps after they see how much better their patients are after deleading them, that perhaps MOST of their sick patients should be entitled to some reimbursement.

Those who are too aggressive however can expect a big fight, and personally unless you can become an expert at all the literature on trace minerals and health, I would advise most doctors not to get involved in this fight. I believe it is better to simply keep your services affordable and treat the huge numbers of people that want Elective DETOXIFICATION of heavy metals. I believe that they should require their patients to pay for Parenterally administered CALCIUM EDTA and the ORAL chelation products, as they do for any other uncovered or elective service. When there are extenuating financial problems however Just do like doctors have historically done, and give away the Injection of Calcium EDTA, which MIGHT be during a COVERED office visit on unrelated matters. Thus in some cases some will simply absorb the modest cost involved and go ahead and treat some of their patients who are there for an needed OFFICE VISIT - free of charge with a therapy to lower their level of toxic metals.

The reason I decided to send out the e-mail to the group is that MANY in the group still do not fully comprehend just how far reaching the inhibition of Nitric oxide and other important molecules required for healthy blood flow, which are all required for in healthy vascular biology from Prostacyclin and Heparin to NITRIC oxide is.

It is clear that the dramatic improvement in this patient is NOT associated with any removal of plaque!! It is clear then that when all doctors learn MORE about the importance of NO in DIABETES, INFECTION, CANCER, as well as heart disease, that we will have more "success" stories from patients being treated for NON cardiovascular conditions, and it will become finally abundantly clear to EVERYONE that these benefits in these patients are coming from HEAVY METAL detoxification, and therefore NO ONE should be afraid to provide entirely legal CHELATION therapy for its FDA approved use, even if they choose to provide this for $100 an injection, or to supply it free of charge where patient need is the driving force.

Since the doctors I am training in the new chelation with Calcium EDTA are NOT using Disodium EDTA in an experimental protocol for cardiovascular disease, BUT CALCIUM EDTA for heavy metal toxicity, I believe that there is NOTHING illegal about the doctors charging for an office visit in monitoring this detoxification program, much of which may the oral program that the patient is following with the ESSENTIAL DAILY DEFENSE ( oral chelator ) and Beyond Chelation products. If, while such patients are in for their office visit, the doctor should choose to provide a 5 minute push of EDTA, at no cost or with a fee, I can NOT see any legal problem, assuming that the patient UNDERSTANDS that this is heavy metal detoxification! I believe ANYONE can decide to offer a free service of an FDA approved substance to a patient DURING on office visit.